User 100115
Banned
Because we need to keep tight control of everyone with depression.
Not, you know...weapons.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NRA's solution to Sandy Hook massacre: "armed guards" in every school
- Thread starter Josh7289
- Start date
- Status
Because we need to keep tight control of everyone with depression.
Not, you know...weapons.
Why do you continue to live in a country were you honestly believe the government is so evil that they will come fuck you over just as soon as you are unarmed? Never mind the fact that many other countries have gun laws and they seem to be doing just fine.
Mammoth Jones
Member
Privacy laws. I'm so glad they exist.
The US was founded on the notion that the people shouldn't blindly trust their Government and should hold them to account. At least that's what I learned on school.
That'll just cause more deaths than we're trying to prevent...imagine the shootouts from people refusing to give up their firearms.
Its not even just original intention. Its that they've gone from being extremely innacurate, clumsy muskets that take 90 seconds in-between shots into little portable death-dealing machines you can hide in your pocket that can kill or seriously injure 15 people in the matter of a minute. Alcohol and cigarettes do not have that sort of power.
I also wouldn't be against banning cigarettes and having tighter restrictions on alcohol if it came down to it, either. Outright banning alcohol, we've seen, didn't work, so just some more restrictions on it would be a reasonable compromise if it was felt necessary.
1) Not impossible. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.
2) If it were impossible to regulate laws, we'd be living in anarchy.
3) No, but you can never get rid of mental illness. We can do more to treat it, I agree, but there's far more we can to stop this sort of thing. I doubt more than one or two people would have died if he had to reload every shot. Hell, he might have thought it was too risky in general and not even attempted it. But nope. Nice semi-automatic rifle made things far too easy for him to decide to take so many lives. No civilian should have that sort of power.
Basically, your line of arguing comes down to - "It'll be difficult, so why even bother?"
I realize its impractical in the short-term and probably wont ever happen, but it'd be ideal, I think. Maybe sometime in the future, people can realize we shouldn't have these sorts of weapons available, but while America is as gun-crazy as it is, its not even remotely plausible. I'm fine with first steps, but I hope that we dont stop there and get complacent on things. Simply banning assault-like weapons and posting guards at schools will NOT stop this sort of thing from happening again and again. We need to go further and start getting away from gun culture in general. I dont care that your hobby will be less fun.
clearly this is the problem. Can we also stamp the mentally ill with a some sort of bar-code so i can avoid them.
Yeah, but that mentality wasn't caused by the presence of firearms in society. Exposure to firearms is not exposure to violence.
Thats fine though. He is only worried about innocent life. Once you buy a gun you are a danger to society and if you have to die for the common good then you must die.
Its sad that the mentally ill already have guns.
I think certain segments of the population (eg crazy people) have shown that. But the average mentally sound citizen that shows that they have realistic desire and opportunity to use it for hunting purposes should be able to own a gun. You obviously do not agree so I don't think we need to keep debating.
Technosteve
Banned
My kid is getting a personal body guard and laser pistols
Blame the British! It's all their fault in the end. If they had just given us a seat in Parliament we would have been fine for a while anyway.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
The ones that would start shootouts refusing to give up their guns? Yeah.
But why do you need to control your government with the threat of armed violence?
The federal assault ban was a poor bill, I think you find few who disagree, and I fully support banning 556 NATO ammo (and its analogues) for civilian use.
It's a frightfully lethal cartridge which is a terrible fit for home defense; the only justification for owning it is that it's fun to shoot and fun to collect guns (edit: I guess there is also the argument that this weapons is our protection against tyranny but I don't buy that line of argument one bit, I can go into details, but I'd rather not shadowbox).
And by the way, I'm not outright reject those types of arguments, I'm just not sure in this particular case they're enough to justify the proliferation of such weapons in our civilian society.
Especially as you can justify every weapon in existence, from full auto assault rifles to anti-air missiles with that logic.
I was talking about the m16 platform.
Why do you continue to live in a country that has gun laws you don't agree with? It sounds like there are plenty of other countries that would make you feel more comfortable.
Mammoth Jones
Member
"A minority of people misuse firearm so the answer is to take away rights from everyone"
Speak for yourself. I'm non-violent. Plenty of patience (ironically I learned such patience helping to care for a mentally disabled person for 20 years). And I handle my responsibility to firearm safety just fine.
Your logic is fundamentally flawed. Gun crime which tragic is in the absolute minority compared to legal law abiding gun owners.
And someone could say the problem with the pro-gun agenda is that they want to continue to move the line the other direction. That's not a point. The slippery slope is a shitty argument. Either you have a problem with where they want the line to be or you don't. You don't get to sit here and say "Well the line could be waaaay off in the distance some day and that's bad!"
And yes, pistols do a lot of gun crime. That's why we need some common sense solutions for that. Background check every sale, even gun shows. Check for mental illness history and/or have a basic test, even. Keep guns out of the hands of those who are felons or have an illness. On top of that I'd add that any sort of domestic abuser shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Period. You do that and you're cutting down access to guns in some common sense cases where people shouldn't have guns. But you can still touch on the mass killings. I think high capacity clips really just aren't something we should have legal, honestly. I'm not sure where to put the threshold at, but something reasonable should cut down on some of the killing power in a few instances without realistically hurting gun owners.
I also personally advocate for more full classes if you want to get a gun. Not some piddly 4 hour shit. A full class. You'd go over everything from safety to laws and all of that. Make people responsible gun owners. On top of that if you have to have a class, then there will be someone there that can see you, interact with you, and notice anything awkward that might come out. They can possibly alert someone if something is a bit off.
Things like these would cut down the number of gun violence instances, while still keeping the right to bear arms for those responsible enough to do so. They're common sense starting points. Any gun owner (that isn't a felon or a domestic abuser, etc) should get behind these things, too, because they ultimately help their cause.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Right, I agree. But since we're obviously not able to deal with the gun access currently available, they need to be gone, all of them. Maybe down the road if we can sort out the nation's mental health issues then limited, recreational access to firearms could be reintroduced.
Your desire to have a killing machine as a hobby is not more important than the safety of the country at large.
Okay, so why the m16 platform? And the .223 is one of the most popular hunting cartidges there is. It's also really prtety weak compared to many other hunting rounds.
User 100115
Banned
If I had the money and ability to move to England, I would in a heartbeat.
Not that I condone anything like this, but I can see people getting together in the face of such an ultimatum and saying "They want to take our guns, they are taking our freedoms, next thing you know it we will live in a dictatorship!" or something. That doesn't mean they are mentally ill, it just means they will see it as an the first step in some sort of governmental attack on their freedoms.
Isn't that the main problem here...people are advocating taking away a right that has been around since the inception of our country. Wouldn't you be pissed off if the government took away a right you cared about? If you tried to do something about it, that would make you mentally ill?
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Damn this nuts its not like people are asking for a complete ban on firearms. I had a rifle as a kid and I use to go to the gun range with my dad. If you go hunting with a rifle, awesome you're a rugged american. but fuck man, AR 15?? semi-auto 9mm?
Also where the fuck are the gun manufacturers in all this? Why not go to the source of the weapons in the first place?
Also where the fuck are the gun manufacturers in all this? Why not go to the source of the weapons in the first place?
speculawyer
Member
Yes, Sandy hook shows that Elementary schools clearly should have armed guards to protect them.
Also, Virginia Tech showed that all colleges and universities should have armed guards to protect them.
The Columbine High School Massacre showed that all high schools should have armed guards to protect them.
101 California showed that all office buildings should clearly have armed guards to protect them.
During the Fort Hood shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others. Obviously they should just let all the soldiers walk around with guns. You'd think the military that studies guns nonstop would know better about guns! But obviously they don't know what they are talking about because it is standard procedure to lock up assault weapons.
The San Ysidro McDonald's massacre was a mass murder that occurred in a McDonald's restaurant where a person killed 21 people (including five children) and injured 19 others. Clearly, all restaurants should have armed guards.
During the Westroads Mall shooting a killer killed nine people (including himself) and wounded four, two of them critically. Clearly all malls should have armed guards.
Need I mention liquor stores, gas stations, convenience stores, post offices, etc.?
This just in . . . a shooting at rural road:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...ooting-leaves-4-dead-2-injured-officials-say/
Clearly all rural roads should have armed guards on duty.
This is unassailable logic. Looks like it is time to invest in gun manufactures . . . they are gonna be busy!
Also, Virginia Tech showed that all colleges and universities should have armed guards to protect them.
The Columbine High School Massacre showed that all high schools should have armed guards to protect them.
101 California showed that all office buildings should clearly have armed guards to protect them.
During the Fort Hood shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others. Obviously they should just let all the soldiers walk around with guns. You'd think the military that studies guns nonstop would know better about guns! But obviously they don't know what they are talking about because it is standard procedure to lock up assault weapons.
The San Ysidro McDonald's massacre was a mass murder that occurred in a McDonald's restaurant where a person killed 21 people (including five children) and injured 19 others. Clearly, all restaurants should have armed guards.
During the Westroads Mall shooting a killer killed nine people (including himself) and wounded four, two of them critically. Clearly all malls should have armed guards.
Need I mention liquor stores, gas stations, convenience stores, post offices, etc.?
This just in . . . a shooting at rural road:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...ooting-leaves-4-dead-2-injured-officials-say/
Clearly all rural roads should have armed guards on duty.
This is unassailable logic. Looks like it is time to invest in gun manufactures . . . they are gonna be busy!
Naw man, we need fingerprint activated guns that query a national mental health database before each shot is fired...
User 100115
Banned
The fact is that most people are a little shocked that people would happily murder other people over keeping possession of a piece of metal.
And that is a ridiculous thing to believe and then carry out (if it were to happen). I would say anyone who would think that way is in some way mentally ill.
Why going so far if it's a problem? Canada isn't crazy with guns, even if we are neighbors with the USA.
I base it almost exclusively on the ammo it uses (I singled it out because that was the type of weapons we happened to be discussing, I don't think it's the end all be all question of gun control).
People hunt with the .223?
I have no direct experience with this cartridge, but from my understanding it's a NATO 556 analog.
Is that true?
Because if so, it's a TERRIBLE choice for hunting.
It's not practical, it breaks in the body and it's range and penetration power highly increase the chance of hunting accidents.
Not sure they'd be happy about it...most likely pissed they had the rug sweeped out from underneath them because the government didn't take other factors such as mental health care more seriously.
There's so many facets to this other than guns we need to consider.
User 100115
Banned
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
But the cop will be kept in a locked vault until needed, guarded by another armed cop who lets him out, and just in case the armed cop who's supposed to let the cop out the vault is shot before unlocking the armed cop, there will be another armed cop standing by as backup, and just in case.....
Stop me when it sounds too absurd...
User 100115
Banned
Most of the people that trumpet the 'from my cold dead hands!' argument seem happy, if not excited about the prospect of killing people who come to take their guns.
Mammoth Jones
Member
We don't "control" our Government with the threat of armed violence. It's simply reserved *IF* the people ever decided it was necessary. I know...I know...queue the King George jokes.
I don't think it's going to be necessary for such an extreme in my lifetime or in my children's lifetime but I'm not also willing to give that right up because shit is going great today.
I don't think any gun owner in the few threads that have popped up on GAF have been saying anything of the sort.
I don't think we're sitting here jerking off to revolution porn lubing up our guns aching for someone to come try n take em!
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Well McGuinty wants to implement a $10 million locked door policy and more cameras on all schools even though the massacre didn't happen in Canada, so we aren't immune from the crazies spilling over from the south and knee jerk reactions.
I guess. The problem with an all out gun ban is we're too far down the rabbit hole to do this...there will always be illegal guns floating around, most likely in the hands of the wrong people.
I could see crime go up as a result to be honest if people thought or knew there wasn't going to be resistance in a home or business because they were unarmed.
Hahahahaha, holy shit. Yeah dude, if you start murdering people cause the government said that you can't have one of your items anymore, you're fucking mentally ill. It's not fucking hard to understand.
gutter_trash
Banned
so small government right wing groups want more public money spent on arming teachers and guards at school now?
oh the irony
oh the irony
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Just to clarify: They do walk around with guns and they did that day. Or at least some of them did. The shooter used a hand gun. Not an assault rifle I believe.
You mean to tell me that mostly the same people that railed against universal healthcare by screaming about death panels and actually uses the argument "Why should I pay for someone else's health?" would be pissed that the government didn't do something about mental health care? Really?
Only one side wants good healthcare for their fellow citizens. The other side is using it as a scapegoat.
User 100115
Banned
That's why no one is seriously proposing a ban on all guns in America. Maybe in 50 years or so it would be a valid line of discussion, but at this point? Nope. Too many people completely in love with the idea of guns and using them in an armed revolt for it to ever be a feasible solution. Increasing regulation, banning certain types of guns, ammo, ect, is a step in the right direction.
If we can wean the county off their love affair with guns, maybe things will change for the better.
Yes, there are a plethora of avenues that should be addressed but does that mean that guns are off the table?
- Status